Ipswich letter: Selectmen should have declared dog dangerous

Friday

Jan 5, 2018 at 5:08 PMJan 5, 2018 at 5:08 PM

After reading about the dangerous dog hearing at the most recent Board of Selectmen meeting, I am disappointed, dismayed and outraged by the selectmen's decision to ignore the advice and council of the town's animal control officer by not declaring the dog dangerous at her suggestion.

This dog, according to the facts presented at the meeting, has bitten other animals and now a child. If this does not define "dangerous," I must ask what does? Is there a minimum number of times that a dog needs to bite another animal or a person before it is declared dangerous?

I hope that the board of selectmen can publicly answer the following questions:

Why did the selectmen disregard the professional opinion of the town worker who is paid to assess these situations?

If the animal control officer declared that the dog is dangerous based on the facts at hand, how and why did they feel comfortable ignoring her advice?

If this dog, God forbid, bites another child then who is responsible? Will the owners be responsible, or will it be the town, which had the opportunity to protect residents but chose not to do so?

By declaring a dog "dangerous" it only serves to protect community members by requiring a muzzle and a short leash in public, while still allowing the dog to be walked anywhere. It does not result in anyone having to lose their pet by putting it down. With such a simple fix to a potentially dangerous problem, it is difficult to see the downside of making this designation. It is not passing judgment on the dog owners themselves, it is merely requiring mechanisms to be in place to ensure the safety of all involved.

Unfortunately, regardless of the circumstances, there is the appearance of favoritism here, as many of the selectmen worked alongside the dog owner on the Board of Selectmen in recent years. Even if they did not feel that they favored the dog owner due to a personal relationship, I still feel that anyone who served with the dog owner should have recused themselves from this particular deliberation due to the optics alone. It gives the appearance that the dog owners received special consideration.

I thank Selectman Whitmore for vocalizing his concerns at the hearing and standing alone with his vote to designate the dog as dangerous. A child being attacked and bitten by a dog is very serious. It has many parents frightened. I hope that the selectmen can think carefully about what has transpired and reverse the decision. -- Kimberly Mavroides, Poplar Street